M/S Castles Vista Private Limited Vs the Assessment Unit

REPRESENTED HEREIN BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MR. RAGHAVENDRA N. RESIDING AT: SY NO. 35/4, FLAT NO.FF 4, VALLABAHA NISHANTH, , UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, VASANTHAPURA BENGALURU - 560 061

¶14

… PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. RAKSHITH B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21100 WP No. 11689 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, 2^ND FLOOR, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 590 095

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. E.I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE AND SRI DILIP, ADVOCATE)

¶23

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (1) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.03.2026 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2025-26/1088130436(1) PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH AND 144B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2024-25 (ANNEXURE A) AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:21100 WP No. 11689 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Petitioner has called in question the validity of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2024-25. Petitioner has sought for certain allied reliefs as well.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that the assessment order is vitiated due to non-adherence to the principles of natural justice insofar as the time provided for making response to the show cause notice under the applicable SOP was not adhered to. It is asserted that Annexure-M which is the show cause notice was issued on 16.03.2026 with response required to be made by 22.03.2026 which is less than the period of 7 days as provided under Clause N.1.3.1 of the applicable SOP dated 03.08.2022.

¶33

It is further submitted that insofar as the proposed addition is concerned, petitioner had made a reply on 24.03.2026 but the complete reply could not be

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21100 WP No. 11689 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

filed due to the time for response being less than 7 days. Accordingly, it is submitted that an opportunity may be given to place the documents to substantiate the reply and make an additional reply as well. A memo is filed before this Court along with Document No. 1 which refers to some of the documents and details that they intend to produce in the proceedings.

¶37

Taking note of the time provided under Clause N.1.3.1 of the SOP dated 03.08.2022 being 7 days, clearly the time prescribed for response at Annexure-M would fall short of the same. The incomplete reply filed within such time, cannot amount to waiver of sufficient time.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that apart from the reply at Annexure-N, petitioner would make a further reply and produce additional documents, apart from those as indicated in the memo filed on 16.04.2026 before this Court.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21100 WP No. 11689 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

In light of the same, without entering into the

¶42

merits of the matter, the order of assessment at Annexure-A, computation sheet at A1 as well as the notices at Annexures-A2, B and D are set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶43

Petitioner is entitled to make out fresh reply in addition to the reply made at Annexure-N, which is stated to be a part of the proceedings and furnish documents in support of the reply to Annexure-N as well as reply that is stated would be filed by way of additional reply. All contentions on merits are kept open.

¶44

In light of the above, writ petition is disposed

¶45

of .

¶46

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶47

VP

M/S Castles Vista Private Limited v. the Assessment Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Castles Vista Private Limited v. the Assessment Unit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hi Tech Services Vs Office of the Superintendent

C Maheshkumar Vs the State of Karnataka by

M/S Daivik Developers Vs State of Karnataka

Shri S Gopala Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Nanda Feeds Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Misri Devi Vs the State of Karnataka